Machinery & Systems Engineering

Consultants in Machinery Selection and Computer Applications

Offshore, Oil & Gas Pipelines and Petrochemicals

Selection and Optimisation of

Centrifugal Compressors for Oil and
Gas Applications

Dr. M. S. Akhtar
BEng, PhD, MemASME

Acknowledgement: This paper was originally presented at the

Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Using Computers in the
Design and Selection of Fluid Machinery, 1993

M.S.E. (Consultants) Ltd

North House, North Street, Carshalton, Surrey, SM5 2HW
Telephone: 020 8773 4500 Fax: 020 8773 4600 www.mse.co.uk
Selection and optimisation of centrifugal compressors
for oil and gas applications
M.S. Akhtar BEng, PhD, MemASME
M.S.E. (Consultants) Limited, Surrey
SYNOPSIS This paper shows how computer programs have been used to optimise the selection of centrifugal compressors
from process conditions which can avoid some of the common design pitfalls. Alternative process schemes can be analysed
on a consistent basis with a correct balance between process requirements and machinery design limits.
1 INTRODUCTION
Centrifugal compressors for oil and gas applications are
normally specified, designed and tested in accordance with
the provisions of API 617 (1). The customer provides the
process and operating conditions whereas the actual design,
manufacture, and testing is carried out by the manufacturer
who also provides the necessary warranties.
Experience has shown that while some machines prove
exceptionally reliable and achieve high availability, e.g. three
years non-stop service, other machines fail during factory
tests and suffer from a variety of field problems, such as
persistent vibrations, performance shortfalls, flow instabilities,
i.e. surging, to name but a few. To safeguard against such
problems in the field, operators now require stringent
mechanical, performance and often full load, full pressure
tests at the manufacturers facilities prior to shipment of the
machines.
These procedures add significantly to the project cost and
time without minimising the risk of test failures.
This paper outlines a computer program called CENTRIF
for centrifugal compressor selection based on achieving
optimum aerodynamic performance. It highlights available
options for multi casing selections and suggests ways of
minimising design pitfalls using the optimum design concept.
2 COMPRESSOR DESIGN
Centrifugal compressors have been designed, built and tested
for a wide range of conditions covering a flow range of 200
to 200,000 m3/hr. The discharge pressure achieved can
exceed 650 bar.
Compressor manufacturers have developed highly
sophisticated design and computational techniques for the
development of these machines. These techniques cover many
disciplines including:
thermodynamics of real gases;
aerodynamics;
rotor dynamics;
stress analysis.
In addition to the above, static and dynamic simulation
techniques have been developed which can help the plant
designers determine the performance characteristics of these
machines in the real plant or on a platform.
3 COMPRESSOR SELECTION
Compressor Selection consists of the purchaser defining the
operating parameters for which the machine will be designed.
The process design parameters which specify a selection
are as follows:
flow rate;
gas composition;
inlet pressure and temperature;
outlet pressure;
train arrangement (series, parallel, etc).
Where the process design requires operation over a range of
conditions, then the selection is often based on the rated
point which is defined by API 617 and is based upon:
highest volumetric flow rate;
lowest molecular weight;
highest head or pressure ratio;
highest inlet temperature.
To avoid over design, the usual practice is to select a normal
operating point at which the machine is expected to operate
for most of its life. For variable speed drives the normal
speed is usually 90-97% of the rated speed, allowing for
contingencies. This leaves sufficient margin for head and
flow variation to accommodate alternative operating
conditions. To check this, compressor performance curves
are produced and the operating conditions superimposed on
them.
For constant speed drives one is left with little option but to
design for the rated point, i.e. on the 100% speed line. For
other operating points a control system is needed which
typically includes suction or discharge throttling and
recycling.
Once the selection has been made then the following
compressor design can be obtained from the manufacturer:
rotational speed;
number of impellers;
impeller diameters;
compression efficiency;
power absorbed;
driver rating;
performance characteristics;
casing arrangement.
Compressor manufacturers provide guaranteed performance
data and machines are tested in accordance with API 617.
4 COMPRESSOR TESTING
The testing of compressors reveals a fairly large percentage
of mechanical and performance failures. Common types of
failure encountered are summarised below:
high mechanical vibrations;
low efficiency;
premature surging;
insufficient flow capacity;
flat head/flow characteristic.
In addition, for high pressure applications, typically above
150 bar, machines often exhibit severe vibrations which arise
due to a variety of reasons, including rotating stall or sub-
synchronous effects. Resolution of these problems requires
a major redesign effort costing considerable sums of money,
extended testing and delivery, plus delays in commissioning,
which are clearly unacceptable (2,3).
In oil and gas applications where centrifugal compressors
play a pivotal role, their availability is essential to continued
production; typically the loss of a days revenue can far exceed
the capital value of the machine.
At present there is no recognised method which will enable
the purchaser to define the process design which will produce
a compressor designed for optimum efficiency and
performance, and which exhibits none of the above
shortcomings. Instead the provisions of the API 617
standards are applied. These provide a detailed and valuable
contribution to the mechanical design, the materials of
construction and the manufacture and test criteria, but have
nothing to offer on the aerodynamic and thermodynamic
design aspects. This is in spite of the fact that compressors
can only be designed to operate effectively within well-defined
limits. Selections outside these limits invariably suffer from
both performance and mechanical problems.
A compressor vendor will usually say if a process design is
completely impractical but, because of competitive pressures,
may be reticent about questioning the basis of designs which
lead to marginal selections.
The following quote from John Stryker, which is reproduced
from reference (4), serves to illustrate and highlight the
problem being discussed.
The centrifugal compressor manufacturer is somewhat
limited in the assistance he can render by the quality and
quantity of the performance data, conditions and requirements
submitted and, consequently, the buyer shares heavily in the
responsibility for a suitable selection. It should always be
kept in mind that since hydraulic (aerodynamic) design is
predicted on the following few conditions and gas
characteristics, namely intake pressure, intake temperature
and intake capacity, molecular weight, compressibility factor,
ratio of specific heats and compression ratio, each value
should be established after a thorough and complete study.
A seemingly small change in any of the gas properties may
well mean that an entirely different unit is required in order
to produce the same capacity and pressure.
It is not always well understood that the compressor design
or selection is strongly affected by the process design
parameters.
A given set of process design conditions and machinery
specifications can, when combined with the constraints
imposed by the available compressor frame sizes, place the
compressor selection in one or more of the following
categories:
vibration prone;
low efficiency;
suffering from choked flow;
surge prone;
unsatisfactory head/flow characteristic shape.
5 OPTIMISATION PROCEDURE
In view of the very high cost of centrifugal compressors and
drivers and the criticality of their service, it is essential that a
detailed analysis of the process requirements relevant to
machinery selection must be clearly established and agreed
between the process and machinery engineers.
The foregoing remarks have established the unsatisfactory
nature of current practices for the selection and design of
compressors. We now introduce a more rational approach,
i.e. compressor optimisation. The procedure is based on
optimising the aerodynamic performance of the compressor
with practical limits set for the selection, e.g. impeller
diameters, shaft diameters and the number of impellers per
casing which influence critical speed and vibration behaviour
of the machine.
The technique is to first establish an optimum geometry and
then to check and adjust the geometry against the practical
and manufacturing constraints, resulting in a specification
for a viable compressor which will allow vendors to design
for maximum efficiency.
The optimum geometry is obtained by an iterative technique
in which the specific speed and specific diameter are
selected to give the highest possible polytropic efficiency.
Compressor manufacturers use flow coefficients and head
coefficients for impeller design. These parameters are similar
to specific speed and specific diameter but do require impeller
diameter, and shape to be specified, which are proprietary.
The specific speed, however, can be calculated independently
of the geometry from a knowledge of the volumetric flow
and the total head to be produced, the latter being adjusted
to allow for the efficiency at each step of the iteration. See
Appendix I for the mathematical expressions.
The specific speed itself fixes the shape of the impeller and is
closely related to the shape number employed by some
writers. Data has been collected by leading investigators
which relates the impeller shape, specific speed and efficiency.
Figure 1 is a plot of specific speed versus efficiency for
centrifugal compressors and indicates that peak efficiency is
reached at a specific speed of approximately 100; efficiency
variation is small close to the optimum value but deviates
significantly away from the optimum. Experience has shown
that losses in compressor impellers consist of the following:
viscous effects;
leakage effects;
aerodynamic effects.
Experiments indicate all the above losses increase as the
specific speed decreases below the optimum value; whilst
aerodynamic losses predominate at high specific speeds (5).
Similarly, while the (tip) Mach number has minimal effect on
compressor performance at the optimum specific speed (Ns
= 100), its effect on efficiency greatly increases as the specific
speed deviates from the optimum.
5.1 Application to a Single Impeller
For a single stage impeller, a knowledge of the volumetric
flow and head is sufficient to find an optimum speed which
yields the highest efficiency.
Example 1:
A compressor impeller can be designed to handle a flow of
10,000 ft3 /min and a head of 10,000 ft.lb/lb over a wide
range of rotational speeds from 5000 to 12500 rpm, resulting
in different specific speeds with very different results. Figure
2 demonstrates that for a given flow and head, the higher the
specific speed and the higher the rotational speed and the
smaller the machine. However, the peak efficiency lies at a
specific speed of approximately 100, which gives the
optimum specific speed and diameter and also results in the
lowest tip speed.
The impeller diameter can be obtained by manipulating
equation B (see Appendix I), and from a knowledge of the
empirical relationship between the optimum specific speed
and specific diameter.
5.2 Single Casing with Several Impellers
For a single casing compressor with several impellers a
reduction in volumetric flow occurs as the gas is progressively
compressed at each intermediate stage. With a common
rotational speed and assuming the total head is divided equally
between the impellers, the specific speed decreases from the
first wheel to the last wheel. The optimisation procedure
described above can be modified to give an average specific
speed of 100 for the casing. However, there is no way in
which all the wheels can be optimally sized. Increasing the
pressure ratio for the casing (total head) widens the difference
between the optimum design for the first and last wheels.
5.3 Multi Casing Design with Common Speed
The multi casing design with common rotational speed
presents similar problems to the single casing/multi wheel
design. In a sense each casing is analogous to and can be
regarded as a wheel. We find that the average specific speed
of the wheels in the low pressure casing is higher than the
optimum. Whilst the average specific speed of the high
pressure casings is lower than the optimum. From this it can
be seen that the impellers furthest from the optimum will be
in the first and the last casings and particularly close attention
must be paid to their design and selection. If a satisfactory
selection can be made for their cases, it is likely that the
performance of the whole machine will be acceptable.
The procedure involving several compressor casings and
operating at a common speed becomes progressively more
complex and requires a great deal of iteration to find an
optimum solution. Figure 3 shows a typical relationship
between specific speed, tip Mach number and efficiency.
6 APPLICATION OF SPECIFIC SPEED FOR
OPTIMISATION
An examination of the specific speed equation will reveal
that it can be varied by either of the following to optimise
the selection:
rotational speed;
head (per impeller).
6.1 Rotational Speed
It can be demonstrated that for a single casing application
with a given inlet flow and pressure ratio, the specific speed
can be raised by simply running the machine at a higher speed,
so that the first wheel has a specific speed greater than the
optimum and the last wheel less than the optimum giving an
average value of 100 to achieve peak efficiency.
The selection of a compressor with an average specific speed
greater than the optimum (Ns >100) indicates that the
machine is undersized, and therefore must run faster and with
a higher tip speed to generate the required head, i.e. the
machine frame is smaller than that required for the optimum
selection. In an extreme case the machine selection may be
so small, perhaps with a specific speed exceeding 160, that
choking will occur close to the design capacity, leaving no
scope for any increased flow in the event of operating
conditions different to those anticipated during design.
Tip Mach numbers for the first wheel in such cases can reach
1.0, especially when compressing heavy gases (Molecular
weight > 30). This will result in a steep head/flow curve,
indicating onset of choking close to the design flow.
Naturally when comparing the cost, a compressor with a
specific speed of 160 will be smaller and hence should be
cheaper than a machine with a specific speed of 100.
This lower cost has to be balanced against low efficiency,
high risk of performance failures on test combined with severe
flow restriction (choked flow) during field operation.
6.2 Head Per Impeller
Another way to optimise the selection is by varying the head
instead of rotational speed. This involves altering the head
per impeller to achieve optimum specific speed. In practical
terms head per impeller can be reduced by:
reducing rotational speed;
reducing impeller diameter;
increasing the blades backward lean.
For a given pressure ratio, i.e. total head, reducing the head
per impeller will result in an increase in the total number of
impellers.
The effect of altering speed and head per impeller to obtain
optimum specific speed is illustrated below.
Example 2:
See Figure 4. This shows that for a single casing compressor
delivering 60,000 ft. of head, inlet volume flow 10,000 ft3./
lb undergoes a 2 to 1 reduction in volume.
At 7500 rpm with 6 impellers, the specific speed of the first
and last wheels are 100 and 68.4 respectively, the average
therefore being somewhat less than the optimum.
At 9375 rpm with 6 impellers, the specific speed of the first
and last wheels are 121 and 85 respectively giving an average
specific speed close to optimum.
As an alternative, optimum performance can also be obtained
with 8 impellers running at 7500 rpm.
While both machines can achieve similar aerodynamic
performance levels, their mechanical or rotor dynamic
performance can differ significantly.
In general terms, as operating pressures increase, the
volumetric flow and hence specific speed become significantly
lower than the optimum values. These problems become
more acute at pressures over 150 bar, where an increasing
number of small diameter wheels must be employed.
In such cases head per impeller must be reduced to raise
specific speed for the very low volumetric flow impellers.
This is achieved by reducing the impeller diameter; small
wheels running at well below their normal design speed
produce little head and hence the number of impellers required
becomes excessively large. This increase in the number of
impellers has a direct impact on bearing span, critical speed
ratio, rotor flexibility and susceptibility to vibrations, and
adversely affects the critical speed and vibration
characteristics of the machine.
This susceptibility to vibrations becomes more pronounced
as the operating pressure increases above 150 bar.
Many compressor test failures, commissioning and operating
problems can be directly or indirectly traced back to decisions
and compromises made at the time of compressor selection.
7 SELECTION PROGRAM
The CENTRIF program has been developed to investigate
the interaction between the following parameters:
compressor speed;
number of impellers;
impeller diameters.
The optimisation procedure discussed in this paper, has been
developed from References (6,7). It is embedded into the
program with a full suite of gas analysis and thermodynamic
equations of state (8,9). It permits the simultaneous
optimisation of up to four compressor casings driven by a
single prime mover.
Once the compressor size and impeller shapes are determined
the following can be established:
flow coefficient;
head coefficient;
polytropic efficiency;
polytropic head;
tip Mach number;
number of impellers per stage;
impeller tip velocity;
discharge temperature.
The program also produces typical performance curves
(Figure 5).
The definitions of all the parameters are given in Reference
(7).
It may seem surprising that information which seems to
require such a detailed knowledge of the shaft and impeller
geometry can be usefully determined at the project stage of
the design from process data alone!
The main benefit of early optimisation using a computerised
selection program is that it can identify design and selection
problems. If a marginal selection is identified, then the
process design may be adjusted; alternative process designs
can be evaluated on a consistent basis and an optimum
solution defined before freezing the design.
The above can be illustrated by a case study. The data shown
below has been derived using the CENTRIF program.
Example 3:
This example illustrates a three section compressor train with
a single gas turbine driver typical of many offshore oil and
gas separation systems. Process design data is as follows:
SECTION I II III
Inlet Pressure Bar abs. 3.8 17.8 41.4
Inlet Temperature C 15.5 35.0 35.0
Disch. Pressure Bar abs. 19.0 44.0 173.0
Mole Weight 35.0 29.5 23.2
Volume Flow m/s 8.69 2.19 0.63
The optimum selection for the above is presented in Figure
6. The optimum speed for the three sections are 5719 rpm,
9971 rpm and 14364 rpm respectively. The total compression
power is 19209 kW. This excludes the gear loss but includes
mechanical and leakage losses.
Figure 7 shows compressor selections when all three sections
operate at a common speed of 5000 rpm, 8000 rpm and
14000 rpm respectively. The corresponding total compression
power is as follows:
COMMON SPEED (rpm) 5000 8000 14000
Compression Power kW 24,156 21,519 21,906
Based on compression power, a common speed of 8000
rpm would appear to give an optimum selection. That is
certainly the case and the normal selection would be based
on a speed close to 8000 rpm.
However, the power consumption is some 12 % greater than
the optimum. The deviation from the optimum of the first
and particularly the last casings is considerable and requires
a closer scrutiny.
A more revealing insight can be derived from an evaluation
of the tip Mach number and specific speed (or flow
coefficients to facilitate comparison with vendor-supplied
data) for the first and the last impeller of each section. See
Figure 8.
5000 rpm
Selection at 5000 rpm will result in a much larger machine,
as can be seen from the impeller diameters and extremely
low efficiency for the third section (56.4%) as indicated by
the flow coefficients of less than 0.008. The total power
24156 kW is some 4947 kW or 25% greater than the optimum.
8000 rpm
Selection at 8000 rpm improves the power consumption and
reduces the machine size. However, the efficiency for the
third section (64 %) and the last wheel flow coefficient
(0.0092) are un-acceptably low. This is due to the relatively
large impeller diameter (472 mm) necessary to generate the
required head.
Experience has shown that such machines suffer from high
vibrations due to sub-synchronous effects or rotating stall.
Such selections will also suffer from flow instabilities, e.g.
early surging.
14,000 rpm
Selection at 14000 rpm reduces the machine size as judged
from impeller diameters, improves the third section efficiency
to 73.2% and raises the flow coefficients to 0.042 to 0.0185.
However, the tip Mach number for the first stage has risen
from 0.89 at 8000 rpm to 1.29 at 14000 rpm. This greatly
reduces the polytropic efficiency (Figure 9), which is clearly
unacceptable.
Experience has shown that in such cases the first section will
be severely flow limited (choked) and will have an
unsatisfactory curve shape.
7.1 ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES (Figure 10)
The selection can be improved by two alternative schemes
compared with the 8000 rpm selection identified as the
optimum speed for minimum power consumption:
Scheme II
By directly driving the first two sections at 5000 rpm and
installing a gear box in-between the second and third section
to enable it to operate at its optimum speed of 14000 rpm,
the flow coefficients for the third casing have improved, but
the power consumption remains practically unchanged.
Scheme III
By driving the first two sections at 8000 rpm via a gear box,
with a separate driver for the third section at 14000 rpm,
this scheme can avoid torsional resonance from a multi gear
box arrangement. The power consumption is 20,062 kW
which is quite close to the optimum (19209 kW). But, more
significantly, the flow coefficients are quite close to the
optimum value for all three sections. A reference to Figure
10 will indicate that flow coefficients for the third section
are 0.042 to 0.0185. The tip Mach number for the 8000 rpm
section will be 0.889 and acceptable.
Scheme III can save approximately 1500 kW in power
consumption over Scheme I, which would normally be
employed in practice.
Difficult selections, such as shown in Example 3, can also
benefit by process and machinery optimisation, whereby
alternative interstage pressures can be evaluated for their
effect on compressor and driver selections before the design
is frozen.
(2) DESMOND, A.D., A case study and rectification of
subsynchronous instability in turbocompressors.
I.Mech.E, 1984-2 C50/84.

8 MULTI CASING SELECTION PARADOX
The above example illustrates the paradox faced by
compressor designers when selecting multi casing
compressors for oil and gas and particularly offshore
applications. In such cases one driver is used for several
casings which normally operate at a common rotational speed.
A compressor designer must limit the rotational speed to
avoid excessive tip speeds and high Mach numbers in the LP
casing.
Low rotational speeds generate insufficient head in the HP
casing necessitating an excessive number of large diameter
impellers giving rise to very low flow coefficients and poor
efficiencies, with a high probability of flow instability induced
vibrations.
(3) FULTON, J.W, Decision to full load test a high pressure
centrifugal compressor. I.Mech.E, 1984-2.
(4) STRYKER, J.E., Basic Specification Considerations.
Compressor Handbook for the Hydro Carbon
Processing Industry. Gulf Publishing Company.
(5) BECKERS, J., Uses of High-Speed Turbocompressors
in Offshore Installations. Trans. I.Mar.E, Vol.99, Paper
21 1987.
(6) BALJE, O.E., A Study of Design Criteria and Matching
of Turbomachines. Journal of Engineering Power,
1962.
(7) SCHEEL, Lyman F., Sizing Centrifugal Compressors,
Gulf Publishing Company 1972.

Multi casing optimisation is to get the right balance between (8) EDMISTER, W.C., Applied HydroCarbon
the aerodynamic and rotor dynamic criteria. Thermodynamics. Volume 1, Gulf Publishing
Company.
9 CONCLUSIONS
(9) SCHULTZ, J.M., The Polytropic Analysis of
Optimisation procedures based on recognised aerodynamic Centrifugal Compressors. Journal of Engineering for
principles offer maximum compressor efficiency and Power. Jan.1962, P.62-82.
minimum compression power.
APPENDIX I
The CENTRIF program based on specific speed and specific
diameter concept, can define an optimum compressor A. Specific Speed:
selection from process data without requiring proprietary 0.5
Ns = N. (Q) /(h)
0.75

vendor data .
Such a program can also identify common design pitfalls at
an early design stage when plant design is not frozen and
enable several process options to be evaluated on a consistent
basis.
High pressure, low specific speed designs lead to low
efficiencies and are prone to flow instabilities; particular care
is needed to minimise test failures and help avoid operating
problems at an early stage in the design.
The selection of multi casing machines requires a clear
understanding of the fundamental design principles involved.
Compromises must be made to get the right balance
between the aerodynamic and mechanical vibration
characteristics and so minimise test and operating problems.
B. Specific Diameter
0.25 0.5
Ds = d.(h) /(Q)
In this paper, the units used are:
Q = volumetric flow rate (cu.ft/sec)
N = rotational speed (revolution per minute)
h = head rise across the impeller (ft.lb/lb)
d = impeller diameter (ft)
Units:
Although the specific speed and specific diameter are really
dimensionless numbers, it has become the industry practice
to use mixed units. The above units were necessary to relate
to specific speed and speed diameter curves shown in the
paper in Figure 1. S.I. units have been used elsewhere.

REFERENCES

(1) API 617, American Petroleum Institute Centrifugal

Compressor for General Refining Service, Fifth
Edition, 1988
 Figure 1
Baljes Performance Curve

Balje generalised performance curves, orienting the adiabatic-dynamic efficiency and the pressure
coefficient as a function of the specific speed and specific diameter

Figure 2
Single Impeller
Example 1: Flow = 10,000 ft3/min
Head = 10,000 ft

RPM 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500

Ns 64.5 96.7 129 15 5

Ds 2.5 1.55 1.29 1.1

Dia (in) 38 24 19.3 17

Tip Speed (ft/s) 829 785 842 927

Efficiency (%) 72 81 79 60

Remark Big & expensive Optimum Good Small & cheap

Limited flow
Likely Operating Early surging Restricted turn- range
None
Problem Lower efficiency up Choking
Low efficiency

Note:
Selection at lower specific speeds leads to larger impeller diameter, lower efficiency and high recirculation with a tendency to early
surging
Selection at high specific speeds results smaller impeller with lower efficiency with a tendency to choke or stonewalling (numbers
have been rounded off for clarity).
 Figure 3

The relationship between specific speed and the meridional shape of the impeller wheel
(courtesy of Solar Turbines)

Peak stage efficiency versus specifc speed

Figure 4
Single Casing - Multi Wheel
Example 2: Total Head = 60,000 ft.lb/lb
Inlet Vol Flow = 10,000 ft3/lb
Approximate Ratio between first and last wheel = 2.0

Firs t Whe e l Las t Whe e l

RPM 7,500 7,500
3
Vol Flow ft /lb 10 , 0 0 0 5,000
Head 10,000 10 , 0 0 0
Option 1 - Six Impe lle rs
Specific Speed 97.0 68.4
Efficiency % 80 70
Diameter (in) 24 24
RPM 9,375 9,375
Specific Speed 12 1 85
Option 2 - Six Impe lle rs
Efficiency % 80 80
Diameter (in) 20 20
RPM 7,500 7,500
Head 7,500 7,500
Option 3 - Eight Impe lle rs Specific Speed 120 85
Diameter (in) 21.5 21.5
Efficiency % 80 80
 Figure 5
An example head flow curve produced by CENTRIF
Compressor Characteristic Curve

Figure 6
Optimum Selection
Figure 7
Options

5,000 RPM

8,000 RPM

14,000 RPM